"Genocide" is one of the most powerful words in existence. The systematic killing of a people by a government, solely for their membership in a particular group, has come to represent the ultimate act of inhumanity to most of the world. Once the word enters a conversation, the stakes involved rise dramatically, as well they should. Given the ability of the word to tarnish an entire country or generation of people, it comes as no surprise that any accusation of genocide immediately evolves into a pressing political issue.
The United States House of Representatives learned this first hand Wednesday. The Foreign Affairs Committee voted 27-21 to pass a resolution saying, "The Armenian Genocide was conceived and carried out by the Ottoman Empire from 1915 to 1923, resulting in the deportation of nearly 2,000,000 Armenians, of whom 1,500,000 men, women, and children were killed." According to BBC, the vote crossed party lines, with both Republicans and Democrats exchanging "yes" and "no" votes.
Unfortunately, the government and citizens of Turkey generally view the issue in a different light. They contend that genocide did not actually take place. Their position is that foreign and subversive forces have unfairly increased the death toll and misconstrued what amounted to a civil war and other World War I-related casualties as genocide. Thus, when the House Foreign Affairs Committee passed the resolution, the Turkish government immediately condemned the effort.
The issue has also sparked protests at the U.S. Embassy in Ankara. Just yesterday, CNN reported that Turkey had recalled its ambassador to the United States over the resolution. Clearly, this is spiraling into a diplomatic crisis.
Despite the Turkish government's position, the evidence for an Armenian genocide is incontrovertible. For example, U.S. newspapers widely reported the genocide, and the United States played a large role in providing aid to the Armenian survivors. Also, embassy officials from all of the major nations in Europe and the United States submitted official reports on the killings. Finally, the Ottoman Empire itself commissioned trials after the war that convicted some of the government officials responsible for the genocide, including the former prime minister and minister of war.
Nearly every citizen of a country wants to believe the best things about their country. The denial and marginalization of these events by the modern Turkish government and people represents an attempt to shelve a past history that is both uncomfortable and potentially harmful to the national history of Turkey.
Should the House Foreign Affairs Committee have passed this resolution? Looking at the issue solely on the moral issues, yes, the committee should have passed the resolution. Other notable countries have recognized the genocide, including a relatively recent resolution by France. I firmly believe that part of the way to prevent these monstrous occurrences from happening in the future is to treat them in the most transparent way possible. Vigilance and remembrance of the past can help change the future.
Unfortunately, moral issues do not perfectly translate into the realm of international politics. Turkey has been a member of NATO since 1952. Furthermore, Turkey has a relatively unique secular and democratic state in a part of the world where that model rarely exists.
For the past 60-odd years, American-Turkish relations have been good. The United States lobbied for the admission of Turkey to the EU. Shaking this foundation of good relations should require considerable forethought.
Beyond the past history and foundation of the American-Turkish relationship, the United States functionally depends on Turkey. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said that Turkey constitutes a vital hub for all of the current Middle Eastern and Afghanistan operations. Gates remarked that more than 70 percent of air cargo to Iraq flows through Turkish airbases. When France passed its resolution, Turkey responded by denying French planes overflight rights. If Turkey acts in a similar fashion, this will decrease the ability to supply forces in the Middle East.
Another aspect affected by this crisis is Turkey's plan to invade northern Iraq. For decades, Turkey has been fighting a guerilla war against Kurdish rebels who cross the border from northern Iraq into Turkey. Recently, Turkey has implemented a major buildup of forces and publicly declared that it is intent on entering Iraq to eliminate the rebels.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that this can only destabilize the region more. It may already be too late to forestall a Turkish invasion, but this diplomatic crisis makes it almost certain that the Turkish government will not and cannot be seen heeding U.S. calls for restraint.
As much as I sympathize with the perspective of the Armenians, this resolution has already provoked a crisis and could easily create real difficulties if Turkey invades Iraq or cuts off the supply chain. It should not have passed out of committee.
In the scheme of things, Turkey is simply a more important issue. If the full House of Representatives votes on this resolution, as Democratic leaders have threatened, this move will only make the situation worse. I hate to say it, but realpolitik must win out in this case: Turkey is simply more important to the United States than Armenia.
Andrew Wagner ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in history and political science.
